THE DISCUSSION IS CONCERNED WITH EFFORTS TO IMPROVE SOCIAL INTERVENTION VIS-A-VIS CRIME. IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT SUCH EFFORTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED NOT ONLY BY THEIR IMPACT ON CRIME RATES AND RECIDIVISM, BUT ALSO BY THEIR EFFECT ON THE PENAL SYSTEM (KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF PRISON, SAVING MONEY OR SPENDING IT BETTER, ENCOURAGING THE PUBLIC TO ACCEPT LESS REPRESSIVE SANCTIONS). STRATEGIES ARE SUGGESTED FOR ENCOURAGING INNOVATIVE THINKING IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL INTERVENTION, FOR ATTRACTING FUNDS, AND FOR WINNING SUPPORT AND OVERCOMING RESISTANCE BOTH WITHIN THE PENAL SYSTEM AND AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC. GUIDELINES FOR CONTINUING AND EXPANDING AN INNOVATIVE SCHEME ONCE IT HAS PROVED SOUND ARE SUGGESTED, WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE PROCESS OF SECURING ACCEPTANCE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. THE CONCEPT OF A 'SALES DIVISION' OR DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, WHICH CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE PROMOTION OF LEGISLATION OR OTHER SUPPORT REQUIRED FOR THE FULL-SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INNOVATION, IS NOTED. THE STATUS OF RESEARCH, THOUGHT, AND ACTION DIRECTED TOWARD MAKING OFFICIAL STRUCTURES MORE RECEPTIVE TO INNOVATION IS ASSESSED. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT, WHILE INNOVATION IN THE SHORT TERM IS A MATTER OF WORKING WITHIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, IN THE LONG TERM STRUCTURAL CHANGES MAY BE NECESSARY IF WORTHWHILE INNOVATIONS ARE TO ACCEPTED AND ACTED UPON. EXAMPLES OF INNOVATIONS IN CORRECTIONS IN GREAT BRITAIN, THE UNITED STATES, AND EUROPE ARE CITED THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSION. (LKM)